Slitherine

Division A
Lysimachos (Early South Slav) 35/37 Jonathan4290 (Early Bulgar) 53/53

A very very close encounter!

Ianiow should be 3rd and Tiavals 4th

Looks good. One thing though... if one makes every other row (and column?) in the same nuance as the title bar (like the threads on the forum has every other post darker gray), it would be easier to read.

Cheers
/Oskar

Yes that is better, however being the nerd that I am, always liked looking at the bp scores as well.

bagration1812 and Triarius have helped in the past designing the spreadsheet for LOEG (God bless them) and even though they are not playing at the moment, possibly asking for their help once more would be good.

I know that both will have a sort of master copy. Also there were only a few hiccups with reference to it's use. Chris' suggestion about the committe filling in the results sounds perfectly sensible, as I belive in the past problems occurred because some players were making mistakes entering data in the wrong columns etc.

If the LOEG spreadsheets were used, it would also be very easy for the committee to see what armies players have used. That is if we have to change armies for each season as with LOEG.

ericdoman1 wrote: bagration1812 and Triarius have helped in the past designing the spreadsheet for LOEG (God bless them) and even though they are not playing at the moment, possibly asking for their help once more would be good.

No, we won't be doing that, Eric, as we will not be using spread sheets for the foreseeable future. We actually like the design of the charts and tables that Anders (hidde) is providing for us and we will continue to develop our ideas in this direction over the coming seasons. Our aim is to create a "magazine-type" feel to the result threads and having the tables incorporated there is part of the effect we are looking for. We are consciously trying to do something different from LOEG, we do not wish to replicate it.

If the LOEG spreadsheets were used, it would also be very easy for the committee to see what armies players have used. That is if we have to change armies for each season as with LOEG.

No, we are not going to insist that players change their armies each season as used to happen in LOEG. Players will be free to pick whichever armies they like each season. The only thing we would say is that if two players in a division choose the same army then, in most circumstances, the player who had used that army before will miss out (if they have just been promoted with that army then we might decide differently). Also, players winning the "A" divisions (or should that be "the player who wins all the "A" divisions?" ) will also be asked to change armies for the next season.

Damn, means I will be either flling in my own spreadsheet and or the use of pen and paper:).

Just to confirm as well Pete. I know that I may be entitled to another cash prize but having won 2 already, that will be enough. I am more than happy, nay ecstatic that I have won twice already.

I think the 400pt maps have less terrain than the 500pt maps which is good in a way?

BTW how many maps did you help design?

ericdoman1 wrote:Just to confirm as well Pete. I know that I may be entitled to another cash prize but having won 2 already, that will be enough. I am more than happy, nay ecstatic that I have won twice already.

Yes, that's very kind of you, Eric. The Slitherine Trophy prize is separate from the FOG Digital League prizes so you are actually entitled to two FDL prizes this time (it will be different next season) so if you do qualify for a second prize it will be re-allocated to another player or players. Thanks.

I was wondering if there is a ruling that means a game has to be replayed if one and or both players are not happy with the map. This would only happen if less than X turns have been played.

I have just put the rules back up as they had disappeared for some reason. Rule 4 states, "Players may also agree to restart a game during the first two turns if they feel the map terrain makes it likely that the match will be stalemated." So both players have to agree within 2 turns each otherwise the map cannot be changed.

I think the 400pt maps have less terrain than the 500pt maps which is good in a way? BTW how many maps did you help design?

There are a fair few of mine at 400pts, Eric. My trademark "sunken marshes" are a giveaway. I didn't do any of the ones with a line of hills down the middle of the map or finger-like molehills everywhere.

Division A

A draw

eric (Byzantine Morea) 7/52 vs Ian (Moldovians) 3/38

On a map where we could just sit on hills. It was agreed upon that a draw seems the logical conclusion.

Div. C

mcwar (Lombards) 23/31 beats Leonidas048 (Early Bulgarians) 52/46

...my last challenge.

Thanks to all

Stefano

Pete,

Think the new format table is much better, let you see who you've played at a glance,

cheers,

Andy.

Yes that is better, however being the nerd that I am, always liked looking at the bp scores as well.

The latest version looks good.

Chris

Big thumbs up for the latest version!

Excellent

Everyone needs to slow down a bit here. The latest version from Anders has not been approved by the committee - Anders has just posted it on his own initiative. We'll have to discuss it on the committee first because entering the scores like that will create a lot more work and I am not sure if we will have the resources to do it, particularly if the number of divisions in each section increases from 4 to 5 or 6. A lot will depend on how Mark feels about it all as he will looking after these charts next season while I will be doing the tables. My own view is that the actual scores are an unnecessary detail - we just need to know who has won, drawn or lost, but Mark and Oskar may take a different view. We will try and let you know tomorrow.

mcfcivo wrote:Pete,

Think the new format table is much better, let you see who you've played at a glance,

cheers,

Andy.

Thanks Andy. The idea is that the new charts will go in the "Arrange your matches here" threads from the start of the season - and the league tables will stay in the "Post your results here" threads.

Division D

Portapenne: Venetian condotta 20/24 beat Greyhunter: Wars of the Roses Tudor 33/33

Oops, I read the post from Eric and since I knew I had that example available I posted it without much thinking.
Even though I'm also a fan of studying the scores I totally appreciate that it can be too much work.

Div D

Brenmusik Early South Slavs (later) 22/52 defeats teletabicus Nikephorian Byzantine 35/30

A tough fight, despite what the score line says. With my "defensive spear" succumbing to the Byzantine cavalry (head on), the day was saved by my Cavalry sweeping in from the flank - ably supported by skirmishers.

stockwellpete wrote:Everyone needs to slow down a bit here. The latest version from Anders has not been approved by the committee - Anders has just posted it on his own initiative. We'll have to discuss it on the committee first because entering the scores like that will create a lot more work and I am not sure if we will have the resources to do it, particularly if the number of divisions in each section increases from 4 to 5 or 6. A lot will depend on how Mark feels about it all as he will looking after these charts next season while I will be doing the tables. My own view is that the actual scores are an unnecessary detail - we just need to know who has won, drawn or lost, but Mark and Oskar may take a different view. We will try and let you know tomorrow.

Sorry everyone, but the more detailed version of the chart posted by Anders yesterday has been voted down by the committee. To add all the scores in like that will create a great deal more of extra work and none of us on the committee are prepared to do it on top of everything else we do. So the charts will just show W, D1, D2 and L on them as originally intended.